87 comments:

Thank you for another great recap. You had me crying with Bonny prince Charlie as Julia Childs! And thanks for the permission to be disappointed when the show doesn't meet my high expectations from the books. A lot of the problems I have are with pacing and lack of character development. It all boils down to time and money.

Mark me,you two are the best!!!!!!!!!!! Regarding Jamie and the the bite scene..... here's my take on it. Remember Jamie is only 23/24 at this time and I think he is attempting to convey to Claire - rather poorly - that because he finally had a reaction with this woman was trying to seduce him that he reacted to it. He's been in brothels practically every night for weeks and nothing, but the possibility of being able to exact his revenge on BJR gives him sort of reignites something in his soul. I believe that when he had a physical reaction to the lady of the evening he knew that there was finally a possibility for he and Claire to be together again without him seeing Randall. Sometimes we just don't use the right words at the right time to explain ourselves. This is just my view of the scene. Everyone is going to have one and it's impossible for all of us to agree. Love watching you two. Look forward to it every week! Have a great week you two!

I agree with you and Carol on this point. Jamie promised to not fight Randall during his rape, but when he promised, he never expected that he was going to have to LIVE with those memories eating at him for the rest of his life. He fully expected to hang the next morning. Those memories of surrender have rendered him impotent--literally. He doesn't feel like a man, especially an 18th century Highlander. We have seen him at the brothel a number of times and he has had no reaction; last week he shooed the 'ho away like an irritating mosquito. I think he was surprised and excited that he felt lust again and ran home to Claire naively thinking she would be just as happy as he was. I did read a comment below that noticed that he was wearing pants, not a kilt, and that's not sitting well with me--kinda like certain scenes from a future book made me extremely annoyed. Carol, I think you know which scenes I am talking about!!!Tracy, I think I laughed more watching you laugh about the "Mark me" lines! So funny!One comment from my non-book reading husband: he thought the whole la dame blanche thing was odd and he didn't get it. He also didn't understand why Claire, Mary and Murtaugh wouldn't just hire a carriage instead of walking back as it seemed to be a very long walk. He also wanted to know why Murtaugh didn't notice it was tampered with until it was time to leave, and they were running really late as well...

Loved the recap, as usual. Feeling much better about our couple! Oh, and Jamie's hair was much better this week!

Carol and Tracy, enjoy your reviews very much and have loved seeing Tom's reaction to Miss Bossy Pants (Claire). I had to mute her conversation with Alex because I couldn't believe Claire would be so heartless.

I loved the scene where Jamie comes in and finds Claire and Fergus waiting up all night. He and Claire do show some tenderness towards each other but it's rare to see in this show. Jamie's sweetness towards sleeping Fergus was heart warming.

We forget sometimes, how sexually innocent our brave warrior is. He showed that in the books when he tried to explain it all to Claire and showed it again last night. I think it will be explained further next week.

Tracey, you are so spot on! I felt like that scene was absolutely twisted. Jamie comes home with brothel bites, something taken from a very separate and rather comic scene in the book, and this is used in conjunction with his ecstasy over the prospect of killing BJR to heal the rift. THIS is what brings him to be able to reconcile with Claire.

The whole bite mark thing was after he and Claire had been sexually reunited for weeks or months. The fact that he could be lusting over the whore at this juncture is disgusting. Claire had risked her life to rescue him, ministered to him under impossible circumstances, tried to be patient with his inability to love her. Book Jamie was never unable with Claire. This is all so unlike Jamie as written. The fact that he came to her at the abbey when anyone would have thought it was much too soon..........

The fact that it is now his hate and desire for revenge that "heals" him is so untrue to his character. He is justified in taking the revenge, but it is an entirely separate issue as Tracey pointed out. I wonder if we will ever see book Jamie again.What was wrong with the story as written? Jamie was an almost perfect character and they had to screw with him. This version of the story lacks sense and credibility. The great love that transcends time couldn't heal him, but bloodlust and bawds could?

I think if I were Claire, I'd buy a one way ticket back to the stones.

I didn't watch the last thirty minutes of the video until just now, and I can't believe how much I laughed with you two over the "Mark me" thing. It was just hilarious!

I also noticed those stem wine glasses, Carol. I want them, as well as the one you are using in the video. They are so gorgeous. They remind me of Colonial Williamsburg.

I'm still upset over the Jamie portrayal, but I did enjoy so many of the other aspects. You are right about the casting. It is absolutely brilliant. The supporting characters from Sandringham to Fergus, Alex Randall to Mother Hildegarde (I saw her in a spy movie last night. Told my husband, "There's Mother Hildegarde." He said, "Who?") Anyway Jamie is the most perfectly cast character of all. I just want him to be book Jamie, which he has been most of the time, at least in season 1.

I love that yes that's exactly right a love that transcends time wasn't enough for him to reconnect with Claire but killing BLACK Jack is!!! That is not my Jamie and it made me sad. I saw him in moments though when Claire was sick at the chess game he was right there by her side

I knew this episode was going to go over well with you guys only because I was kind of bored by it. WTF? Let me explain. I'm a fan of some things in the books and a big non-fan of other things in the books. Never been a fan of Claire and because of that, never been a fan of the Jaime/Claire relationship. But I love the time traveling adventures and intrigue and am really liking the show because I think they've been fixing a lot of things that I had problems with in the books.

That said, I love your videos because even though we don't see the the show or the books in the exact same way I really like the fun, light-hearted way you have with the things you both like and dislike. I actually had to step away from the TN ladies because I find their attitudes a bit too negative. Not that I think they should change what they do. If I felt the same way they did about the books I would probably love hanging out with their catty disses of the show. But instead, it just bums me out too much.

I find it funny that I've really loved the episodes so far and that this was the first one that faltered for me. I didn't hate it, but I was bored during most of the Jaime/Claire 'kvetching about their relationship' stuff and I'm pretty sure I checked the clock during their sex scene. (I'm really just not into their romance.)I know, sacrilege in this fandom. But I love checking in with your videos each week and I hope you don't mind fans who have a different take on the books/show joining in.

OK -- You dislike Claire. You dislike Jamie and Claire together. But you like time travel and intrigue. Since only Claire has been time-traveling so far, this must pose big problems for you. Ditto with her involvement in the intrigue. Please tell us which character(s) you DO like. Oh, wait, if it's Frank or Black Jack I don't want to know. (Altho they don't time travel either.) At least you like MOP and dislike TN. Props for that.

I think I get you: You enjoy the story but aren't in love with certain characters. That's cool with me, not sacrilege at all, mainly because I agree. I prefer Jaime and Claire being human rather than idealized characters. It must be difficult for the producers to sift through all the voluminous conversations and inner monologues in the books and settle on just the right amount of communication between the couple. Enough to encompass all the themes from the books but not so much that it starts to get boring and "oh, great, this again."

I do like Claire more in the show than I did in the books. (Go Catriona!) I do really like Jamie, but he's just not my idea of an ideal romantic partner. I'm not 'into' him, but I like him a lot as a character. I don't need everyone to time travel. I just love stories about people going back in time and having that perspective of knowing more about the future, but maybe not enough about the past. I love a lot of the supporting characters like Murtagh, Fergus, Geillis, etc. I just don't find the series to be my idea of a great romance. Jamie's not the l kind of guy I'm into. Claire's not the type of woman I admire or want to be. And there's a lot of narrative that meandered and could have been better edited in my opinion. But I did find things I really enjoyed about the series and now the show is sort of taking it to the next level for me. So I don't mind changes at all. And I'm not tied to the way the relationship stuff played out in the series. I get it though, for those who really loved the love story it could be frustrating to see that moment that meant so much to you not show up or show up completely differently.

Maark mee. How many syllables is that? So I've started taking notes on your recap.1. Closed captions are your friend. 2. I was shouting at my ipad, "Borat! Borat! Borat!"3. How did you yada yada yada over Sam's delicious ass befor the epidemic bite marks appeared.4. Jamie's description of his naked soul hiding behind a blade of grass made me think of Voldemort in the last HP writhing under the bench in Harry's vision as he was dying/coming back.5. I loved the soixante-Neuf dialogue and I believe in the books the whores demonstrated on the table which would conceivable add to Jamie's increased lust.6. Is that the Comte's wife/sister/cousin at the dinner party? They resemble each other.7. Chuck has no gaydar.8. I still tear up when I see Sandringham because as great as he is as Sandringham, i still see him as the 4 weddings and a Funeral character.

I look forward to your recap each week almost as much as the actual episodes. I am a devoted Gilmore Girls fan as well. Watched it live when it first aired and multiple times on reruns while staying home with my babies. Happy to discuss GG any time! Thank you ladies for your humor, insight, and Outlander love.

Carol, I also love Master Raymond, and I can’t help but hope that we will see him again in the books. I feel he may possess some sort of special knowledge that will be of importance to Claire - perhaps when she reaches her “full power?” He seems the perfect character to offer guidance. I’m sure you’ve probably read DG’s novella, “The Space Between,” but for those who have not and might be interested, Raymond makes an appearance there.

Tracey, yes, keeping the books and the series separate is VERY hard, especially when one worries that the essence and integrity of a beloved character is being degraded. The thigh bites scene!! Ugh!! I had EXACTLY the same issue with this! The notion that blood-lust is now Jamie’s only path to sexual lust and connection with Claire is disturbing - and just all kinds of wrong. Does this mean if Randall dies of smallpox, or falling off a horse, or whatever, that Jamie’s “joy” with Claire will remain UN-unflagging forever?

When I first watched that scene, I was nearly livid. I remembered that part from the book, with the bath, and the hickeys, and the heartfelt dialog that came after. J&C were a united couple then, so it was only a bump in the road, and a great excuse to hear Jamie explain his (faithful) sexual feelings. At this point in the show, however, they have been “disconnected” for months. Jamie has bites on his inner thighs, and the camera DELIBERATELY shows us that Jamie has been wearing pants instead of a kilt. The term “character assassination” actually crossed my mind, because I felt viewers were purposefully being lead to doubt Jamie’s fidelity - and his intelligence. I am glad they were able to salvage the “blade of grass” speech from the first book - I only wish it had been given under "better" circumstances.

I listened to RDM’s podcast for this episode, something I rarely do, because I just needed to hear somebody do some ‘splainin.’ What I learned in some ways made me feel better. Tony Graphia is the guest. She mentions a scene which was cut, where Jamie is trying to figure out from Fergus which of the girls at the brothel both talks the most AND he wouldn’t have to sleep with. For non-book readers, especially, I wish that had been kept in, but even faithful book fans sweat a little over just how much “our Jamie” might be changed.

RDM commented that he just couldn’t cut out that “funny” exchange between Claire and Murtagh after she tells Jamie that BJR is alive. Viewers were made to dread Jamie finding out, so that line “I don’t know what you were so worried about” was aimed at us as well. I didn’t find it funny because Jamie’s reaction to that knowledge felt wrong to me. If BJR had really died, or if Jamie had NEVER found out BJR lived, are we to believe this would have poisoned his marriage forever? That isn’t Jamie – or rather, that isn’t the love we know Jamie has for Claire. Unfortunately, this is part of the leftover damage from giving Jamie’s recovery short shrift last season. Jamie’s need for revenge should never have been intertwined with his relationship with Claire. While I am glad J&C have finally reconnected in the show, I just wish it had happened under less disturbing circumstances.

I didn't find that line funny either Dolittle. And it was sort of a hostile thing to say, when Murtaugh and Claire are close and supported each other last week in their concern over Jamie. I guess it was supposed to be a joke. That was not clear to me.Lisa N.

Well said on every point, Dolittle. It all stems from not dealing with Jamie's recovery at the end of last season. Now, they are struggling to include important elements like the "fortress" conversation. It loses its impact by being inappropriately placed alongside the mundane and the ridiculous. Important things are out of order and context, and it's amazing how this can affect our concept of the characters.

totally agree Dolittle and Linda. Cutting all the healing that happened at the end of season 1/first book is now coming back to haunt the writing in the TV perspective. I am concerned that every time the writers try to "fix" things it seems to create more problems.

Dolittle, I almost choked on my coffee laughing when I read your post "....small pox or falling off a horse..." ! Very funny.

I didn't find Claire's "funny" comment to Murtagh very funny either. I don't know if it is the writing or the delivery but Claire is way to snotty in many of her comments.

The Claire I see in my head from the book is very direct, has a dry wit but is never mean spirited. I'm finding TV Claire very mean spirited.

I will say the the way TV Claire held Mary Hawkins and cradled her head after the rape was very much in keeping with the way I see Claire in my head. She is at her best in emergency situations giving care and comfort.

The bite scene in the book was one of my favorites but once again it turned from being a funny conversation in the book to a bitter and nasty one on the show.

They kept saying they couldn't do all these cute intimate scenes from the books but they did manage to get a king pooping scene in that went on and on and on.

Hi Ladies! I love your recaps, I really like how you break everything down! I think that Claire looks so much brighter than all the other people in the streets because she is more upper class than anyone else out there. All the ladies that she plays cards with like Louise are dressed beautifully too but they wouldn't walk down the street and go into shops, that's what they have their servants do. thank you!

Tracey I completely agree with you about the Fortress scene. On my first viewing it felt odd and forced and it because they did try to do too many tones in this scene - comedy (bite marks and good luck explaining), hurt and anger from Claire, serious and hearfelt from Jaime (fortress). You are also right about that in the book, when Jaime explained to claire, shortly after his trauma, how he was feeling, he WAS like a hurt little boy and so vulnerable. It was heartbreaking. But in the show, he was definitely seemed more angry, rather than broken. You still felt for him but you didnt necessarily want to gather him up and hold him and tell him it will all be ok. It felt lacking when I first viewed it but on my second viewing, it felt fine. He was angry because he did just learn that BJR is still alive and that has stirred up these feelings in him. He wants revenge for what RAndall did to him, and how he made feel so vulnerable. I haven't watched the whole recap yet, just wanted to make a comment now. I'm with you on this one!

Carol now I have to agree with you! It is about CONTROL (hearing Janet Jackson a little), especially in the 18th century having control would be so important to a man. Jaime knowing that he can do something about BJR has lit a fire in him. The fire of anger and vengeance is probably pretty similar to the fire of lust (that's the connection of exacting revenge and feeling lustful when the whores tempt him) we could use a psychologist here to make sense of it! Carol - "i'm gonna F@#%ng kick your @$$!" Exactly - of course that's how Jaime feels!!! BTW loved the pregnant lovemaking and how did they make Cait's/Claire's breasts look "pregnant" too?? Loved this episode - so many things happened! Oh and I'm also wondering if I can get away with "Mark Me" with every other sentence...I want a shirt

I have to disagree with a lot of criticism that I've heard from book readers regarding the show's "departure" from the characterization of Jamie and Claire's relationship from the books. Outlander and DIA are both extremely loooong books. The show is always going to be challenged by "squish-itis", trying to cram everything into a season's worth of episodes. It is logistically impossible for ANY book-to-film adaptation to include every detail, so the art is to deliver the story conceptually in a condensed format. With that in mind, I am amazed at how successful this adaptation has been in delivering the concepts ACCURATELY.

Jamie's ability to psychologically gain control of and kill BJR was a critical step in his recovery in the book. That was what the entire "possession" scene at the Abby was all about. Claire took on the identity of BJR and Jamie attacked her and nearly killed her at the abbey, thus allowing him to defeat the passivity that he was forced to honor at Wentworth. There were some profound passages in the first few chapters of DIA where Jamie went into the darkest details of what happened at Wentworth and how it changed him. He hated BJR most of all because of those changes - how he now recognized a need within himself to mix pleasure and pain, violence with sex. These last two episodes have been dealing with delivering these concepts in a logical manner considering the extreme time compression. They have managed to successfully bring us to the same point that was reached in the book. TV Jamie is NOT out of character. In fact, Book Jamie is actually much darker than TV Jamie. Anyone who thinks DIA is all about marital bliss between Jamie and Claire needs to go back and read the book again. Their marriage was severely tested and barely survived in the book. Both Jamie and Claire had multiple A-hole moments in the book! But it was surviving these very trials that laid the foundation for the enduring love that they would go on to develop as a couple. It is this very True-to-Life aspect of the series that separates it from the typical read-it-and-weed-it nature of the more insipid romance novels of the time. Outlander is no Disney-esque Happily Ever After Fairy Tale and to demand that it be so strips this epic story of everything that makes it so epic! Jamie and Claire are both beautifully flawed, which is what makes their love story so appealing!

I agree as well! The "possession" scene at the Abbey is exactly what I thought...needed to defeat the passivity. The pleasure and pain part also because Jamie actually tells Claire in so many words what "Randall had showed him" and how he wants to sometimes "use" Claire (I assume a little rough) and she has the same feelings.

I don't agree that the tv show is accurately or in your words ACCURATELY portraying book Jamie and Claire. I don't dispute your perception only that you think your view is the only accurate one. I like there are various views of how the characters should be. It shows that the author reached a wide assortment of people with her story.

Is my opinion of the book vs the show the same as yours? No. But it is my opinion.

You may disagree with the criticism some are giving the show but your opinion is yours and mine is mine.

I don't care for the relationship between Jamie and Claire portrayed on the tv show. But I do like the show.

When you compare TV Jamie to book Jamie in DIA, you cannot help but find character differences. These are due entirely to the (questionable) path the TV series has chosen to take. This has been frustrating for many book fans, not just because we know what's missing, but because we also know that the non-readers DON'T know what they're missing! Book readers KNOW the hardships and heartbreaks to come (you are right, this is no fairy tale HEA), and with this compressed timeline (only thirteen episodes??!), they will be coming far too soon. It has just been sad to watch periods of time that should have included happiness and unity between J&C be needlessly squandered away.

TV Jamie is a muted version of the vibrant, loving, strong, and humorous Jamie from the book. Granted he is, at his most basic level, the same character, but he is not the same Jamie who claims to be able to talk to Claire "as I talk to my own soul." He has been incapable of intimacy with Claire - and I DON'T just mean sexually. The seeming disinterest in Claire's pregnancy is a world of difference from the book Jamie who is so happy about the idea of his wife and baby that he feels he might "burst with joy." TV Jamie is made to appear more of a "follower" than the lead strategist of a plan to discourage men of wealth from supporting the Stuart cause. Book Jamie embarks upon this mission because, as laird, he feels a keen sense of duty to the people of his land - and he expresses gratitude to Claire for agreeing to help him in his endeavor to save his culture. Book Jamie is also the one who found reassurance in the belief that BJR was dead, with nightmares that surface only after doubts about that fact begin to set in. Yes, book Jamie has darkness to deal with, but he is a strong man, capable of control, and has not allowed an incident that was out of his control to poison his marriage to the woman he loves, and who had fought hell to save his life.

I have to disagree that book Jamie is darker. His humor and love and sense of purpose practically shines. It is the Jamie that allows his relationship with his wife to stagnate until he discovers he could possibly get his revenge that is MOST out of character.

For any non book readers, if you have made it this far in the TV series and care enough about this story and these characters to be reading these blogs, do yourself a favor and read the books - or listen to the audio books. Find out what some of us are moaning about, and what you are missing :)

That's the nice thing about opinions, everyone is free to have them whether anyone else agrees with them or not. I've read the books numerous times over the last 20 years and I'm perfectly fine with the depiction of Jamie on the show. And his relationship with Claire. TO ME (I have to add this disclaimer because apparently some people think that if I do not I am insisting that my opinion is the only accurate one) TO ME TV Jamie is consistent with the Jamie of the book - at the time of DIA. He is not the Jamie at the beginning of Outlander or at the end of Voyager, or the one that lived on the Ridge. And what is important to me is that his behavior is consistent with experiences that he has undergone in the previous episodes. So far, there has been no episode that I didn't thoroughly enjoy (yes, that includes The Search) and I am looking forward with great anticipation to a scene involving a verra large sausage!

Hate to refer back to the books, but I think most of your followers are book fans. One of the main reasons I read all of the books was because I was engaged, I loved Claire and Jaimie and their relationship. Claire fell in love with a man that she could relate to. Jaimie in the book is portrayed as a man with a personality that a 20th century woman can be married to in more than name only. She loves and respects a rare man. This is shown very strongly when she returns to 1948 and is confronted with the man that she had married. Frank is a good man that she was in love with but he's not Jaimie.I have had a recent thought that maybe the TV writers are laying some ground work so that they can expand Jamie's character in the future. Currently he comes across as being a bit immature. Claire fell in love, lock stock, head over heels in love with the Man Jamie. That's not the Jaimie I'm seeing just now.Regarding all the tests that Claire and Jaimie go through, I'm tired. We need to see a strong relationship being tested, not another and another and another test just for the sake of conflict and drama.Claire is not a bee-atch. Why do they make her sound so snarky all the time? Lighten up on her please.Mok me, I am so glad that Claire and Jaimie are back on the same page.The new director got the nuance of eye contact and expression spot on this week.Love love love Fergus!

I enjoyed your video, ladies! Tracey, let's remember that Jamie is a warrior, and warriors become sexually aroused after battle, which Jamie has expressed many times.He's awkwardly trying to explain that his thoughts of conquering BJR are allowing his lust for Claire to return. I can say I liked this episode best for S2: I have been disappointed so far. I do feel that the bite scene, leading into the shelter speech, was clumsy at times, and I blame the writer or director. I don't really care for the shelter speech, in book or show, because it always seemed out of place for 1700's Jamie. However, i am so grateful that Jamie and Claire are finally fully together. I thought the kisses they exchanged throughout the episode were endearing, more telling of their return to intimacy than the talking or even the sex. I hope they move on from Jamie's suffering and make him stronger and bolder again. In the book his actions never faltered, in his lovemaking with Claire for example, though for TV this new scenario was written. I liked the honeypot scene in the book and thought it would have been funny on the screen. We could have used less time on the king's toilette scene, more humor with the honeypot.I read the books, but not until after I saw Season I A, which spoiled us because they followed the book more closely than they have ever since! If they keep the Jamie and Claire love story, faithfully, then I will be ok. It doesn't bother me when they crowd a lot of information into one show, or when they embellish some characters, like Murtagh, but please don't mess with Jamie and Claire.

OMG SUSAN THANK YOU - I totally forgot I wanted to mention that Battle point, too!!! I think I have to go read that part in Outlander again; I just loved that whole scene when Jamie's all keyed up after they were attacked by a neighboring clan.

Hello! Non-book reader here.....I love your recaps. It's always interesting how a book reader vs. a non-book reader interprets things sometimes. I do have to admit though that I have read a pretty detailed summary of what happens in DIA (Yeah I'm one of those read the end first kind of people) so I know where this is all going. But, I really don't have any pre-conceived notions about how the characters should/would be acting.

Soooo here's my take so far.....I loved S1. Pretty much everything about it. So far S2 has been hit or miss with me. I didn't have a problem with last week. Nothing jumped out at me as being a catastrophe. For S2:4 I felt like everything was moving at lightening speed. I was hoping for a little more downtime for Jaime and Claire to canoodle or something beyond what we got. The bite mark thing was weird, I was with Claire on that. I wish his fortress speech was a little bit softer, but well I'm glad he said anything. Oh and you mentioned in the video that people wouldn't talk about feelings in this time period. I don't think Claire was asking for a sit down therapy session. I think she was just asking for some kind of communication at all - because he really hadn't up to this point. As far as Jamie getting back to business after learning about Black Jack - for me it wasn't that the thought of killing him/revenge got him back to that point. He said in that last episode that Randall broke him - he knew and Randall knew it. With Randall being alive he has a chance to show him that he survived it and can be unbroken. If Randall had stayed dead I do think there would still be something broken in Jaime forever, but luckily that isn't the case.So these are my rambling thoughts - thanks for reading if you made it this far! Kim

The show is gorgeous the acting phenomenal. I am a book reader and do not expect them to follow the books. I do expect them to relate Jamie and Claire and their great love. I have to share the disconnect in everything in Outlander to me is the relationship between tv Jamie and Claire they are but a small shadow of the Jamie and Claire from the book and then instead of keeping Frank as the cheating thoughtless swine that he is (yes I have Frank issues) they have presented Frank as the good morale husband. This couple they present is not intimate and thought provoking this couple does not move me like the book Jamie and Claire, yes they love each other, yes they have issues we all do in a relationship. We all know Jamie is not perfect we know he has cracks in his amour but this to me has been character assignation of both Claire and Jamie I miss their humor, physical intimacy (not sex), their talks the precious things Jamie says to her that melts me and Claire says to Jamie all gone in the series nowhere to be found. They put a stake in it and buried hope they will resurrect it but I do not expect it.My frustration is that they are not relating the uniqueness of Jamie and Claire's relationship and their deep physical, emotional and psychological bond. When Murtaugh returned with Claire and Mary, Jamie’s reaction or lack thereof took me aback. If your pregnant wife was attacked, you would just walk up to her and say hey you ok and the baby. Jamie and Claire just both came off as emotionless towards each other to me. That is intentional a hug of I almost lost you both and some real concern is missing, her clinging to him like he is her rock is gone, a normal person would have reacted more than these two. Same for the bedroom scene prior to dinner before she goes downstairs he could have hugged her kissed her head and said the Comte is here.I believe the men do the editing keep what they like and I as a female viewer I feel shorted because we already know so many tender moments were cut from season 1 and already season 2 yes a kiss on the nose means a lot to me guys. It is like Jamie and Claire are just about sex they are missing it in my eyes and they feel once they show a sex scene nothing intimate (not sex guys) between them should happen anymore.I feel like Jamie; I am not presenting this correctly. Well maybe they have some wonderful things in future episodes we will see. They completed each other one lost without the other one just half a heart without the other. I liked the episode but some parts were off for me. It is the best out of the four for this season for me. This next episode is going to throw them back into the drama and we all know what comes soon. Thanks for letting me share. Maybe I am missing something and just misunderstanding what they are trying to present.Southern Gal

Southern Gal, I add my Amen! to Carol's. You stated it very well. I can't believe we got a long king pooping scene, a dildo rent or sale scene, a body painting brothel scene, but none of the touching, humor, closeness Jamie and Claire are constantly doing in the books. The pooping scene could have been a frat boys go to the French Court Animal House movie scene for goodness sakes. I guess the writers think sex=intimacy but it doesn't. You can have sex with a stranger. They are missing the one thing that makes the books so loved by so many.

It is always interesting to watch your podcasts. It may help to listen to Ron Moore's podcast before recording yours. For example, this week's episode, 204, was done by Ron Moore and Anne Kenney. Some of your questions would be answered by the discussion they have. I hope you have the opportunity to check it out.https://www.starz.com/series/outlander/more/podcastsThanks for taking the time to share your thoughts about this spectacular series! Tulach Ard!

It's been awhile since I read this book, but I think that Claire was seen as "La Dame Blanche" because she was wearing that white stone around her neck. Also, you mentioned the reaction Claire had when Master Raymond made the comment, something about his interest in things not of "this time," and what about Jamie's reaction when he was introduced to Alex Randall!! Did you see how his body reacted, and how he had a fleeting moment of terror? Awesome acting. I thought it was the best scene in the whole episode. This was a good one, for sure. Thanks for your recaps, I enjoy them a lot.

My mom and I love to watch the weekly re-cap with you guys every week. MARK ME!!!! This was the best episode of the season and we needed it! :) I did kind of squint my eyes at Jamie's reaction to BJR being alive, but after thinking on it--- I can understand his feelings.

This is the third comment from me; I am reminded as I read comments above that in the book, Jamie is ALWAYS ready to go with Claire after a good old fight against his enemies, yes? He jumps her after the excitement of battle. He's a highland warrior, as someone reminded us, and that is why he needs to kill Randall. himself.

Mark me (Mock me??) You 2 are HA-frickin' - LARIOUS ! (and why am I getting a Trump flashback to 'Believe me') And, seriously, why does a prince need to say that unless he thinks that what he says isn't heard/believed ?? AND - It's icky the way he keeps petting Jamie's face. Who is he, Sandringham??

Once again, a terrific recap! I thought this was a very good episode too... It seemed like it was over more quickly than last week's.

I was confused by the bite mark scene too... Just because while he did say that nothing happened, he was wearing pants and with the location of the bite mark, ummmmm, how did that come about, buster?! I wasn't put off by his explanation that attributed his renewed "abilities" to the fact that BJR is alive. I just couldn't figure out how "nothing happened." Not that I don't believe him... He's Jamie, after all!

And I loved your insight into the significance of Claire's advice to Louise about raising the child with love... I totally missed that!

finally, I want to compliment you on your Talladega Nights references... That scene at the table is my favorite one in the movie! It cracks me up every time I see it... "Chip, I'm gonna scissor kick you in the back of the head!" "Dear, 8 pound, 6 ounce Baby Jesus..." LOL. I live in the South and am relieved to report that I don't know one single person like the characters in that movie!

Can't wait till next week's vid!! I know it'll be legen -wait for it - dary!!

My favorite is little Fergus chomping on that chicken leg or whatever the heck it was in the last scene. Bravo! He is tres adorable! The casting of the secondary characters is impeccable. I wait to see how the actors will bring them alive.

Hey, I totally get why Jamie needed to be able to kill Black Jack to feel like a man. My (non book reading) husband was disturbed by Wentworth, but was sad Jamie would not get to kill BJR. As soon as he heard he was alive, he wanted Jamie to kill him. let's call it the male gaze. It was true for 18th century Highlanders and it is true for 21st century Nova Scotians. He also wanted Jamie and Murtagh to kill the rapists. Another interesting convo with my hubby. He was like, "is he raping her?" I am sure many men don't think about how fast a walk can turn so bad. But I am sure many women have seen that happen to them in their mind's eye when they are walking in dodgy places. Effective in its understatement.Therese in Nova Scotia.

Great recap! I love the silent laughter....always gets me going as well. You know after reading all the comments since season 2 started my head is a spinnin' but I shake it off and ask myself one overall question...does the show entertain me? It does!! I'm a book reader fan but I do know that books to tv series are different (c'est la vie). The cast makes all the difference and they are fantastic!! We (myself and my 4 adult daughters who are not book readers) are entertained and we also made it a drinking game out of it from the first show...makes it very entertaining). Well tonight it's TURN (my 2nd obsession).

Tracey--totally, TOTALLY get you were saying about Jamie being "ready" to be a man again. I could go on and on with this, but I'll try not to.

First: WHERE IS THE KILT? That is the reason the whore was able to get to Jamie's thighs--easy access. She was attempting to engage him in the act--UNSUCCESSFULLY. By putting Jamie in PANTS in this scene and showing bite marks, or hickeys, or whatever that was, sent the message that he had to have taken the pants OFF at some point, alluding to him participating in SOMETHING. This totally defames Jamie's character. Book Jamie would have NEVER taken off his pants.

Secondly: The only reason Jamie was still there was because he was being chastised by the other men there for not being manly...he was trying to maintain some dignity while giving the illusion he was interested in the whore. Wasn't it at this point he told them his wife was La Dame Blanche and that she would shrivel his parts if he cheated?(paraphrasing of course.)

Third: He comes home all hot and bothered. Okay, I know men are men, but really RDM? This did not happen in the book. He was not flippant about it in the book. He was annoyed by the whore doing that to him.

The timing of the whole thing is off. I know they ran out of time in S1 to do a proper healing....and now this is what we are left with. They are tying different story lines together for the sake of time and it is not coming out right. By having the bite mark episode coincide with their first time was a tragedy....and it was such a beautiful scene. The "come find me Jamie, come find us"--was swoon worthy.

I READ the "hiding under a blade of grass" passage very differently than the way Sam acted it out. Don't get me wrong--he was magnificent, but his tone was softer...there was no anger of frustration in that speech. He was vulnerable; he was telling Claire he had lost himself. It was SHE who got him out of that place--NOT Jamie's plans on killing BJR.

I can not begin to tell you how vindicated I feel to know that someone else saw the scene as I did. I wish I had seen this website before now. The whole thing has been bothering me still now, 3 weeks later. It did indeed seem very "off".

Great review...again ladies! I laughed SO hard at the "mark me!" LOOOVE that! It reminded me when Sandringham was in Scotland, and he kept turning to his assistant saying, "Write that down." Too funny!

The "69" scene was my "Somewhere in Time" moment this week. It is doubtful that an 18th century Highlander or a 1945 nurse (British) would have ever called it that. IMHO....

And I thought, too...why didn't Claire and Murtagh just hire another carriage?? And Murtagh and Fergus were outside...how come they didn't see the carriage wheel??

Overall, this episode was probably the best yet of S2. Although it's engaging (sometimes), it's never riveting. Hopefully, it will get better.

Mark me! That was a good episode and recap ladies. I really enjoyed Claire and Jamie finally talking it out and saying how they feel about their frustrations. The only part that got me was when Jamie said to Claire you have given me something to look forward to. It's like hello your wife and baby isn't enough to look forward to in the future so what he would've kept being depressed forever if BJR would've really died. Idk that kinda bothered me but all in all this episode had all the feels and it made me laugh out loud so many times I can't wait till next week. BTW wee Fergus is just too much for me.

Ok, here's the problem with the show. The books are about how Jamie and Claire compliment and complete each other, despite their age difference and Claire having lived in another century. At their heart, these are love stories. Yes, there is much intrigue, a lot of need to avenge things that happen to both of them and their family, but the main point of the stories, and why people can't put the books down, is this incredible relationship. They are truly soul mates, share a pure love, and it is their complete devotion to each other that keeps them alive during some really horrible stuff. They bail each other out, even if they know the cost to themselves will be great. This episode ruins that. In the books, Claire heals Jamie, physically and emotionally. In the show she allows him to flounder, and he is healed by the whole BJR thing. In the books Jamie is made whole again by Claire, even when they think BJR is dead. The thing that heals him and propels him forward is her love and willingness to do the most risky thing to save him, and good thing it works. This tv take destroys the relationship they have in the book. She just lets him be and goes off candy striping. Claire is a healer and her most important patient is Jamie. And this is a huge thing she has to heal him of in the books.

Maybe if they played it differently it would have kept the integrity of the stories and the characters. Like he comes home from the brothel and tells her he realizes he's not healing, but the whores made him realize he can and then gives the fortress speech and he and Claire have a moment of healing they are both involved in, then they get intimate and she sees the bites. Or something. But Claire needs to heal him because she loves him and won't give up on him, knowing how badly he is damaged.

I don't think the shows need to depict everything that happens in the books, don't think that. But they have lost the characterization so badly, the thing that fuels the whole series, I think they have truly ruined it. It is about Claire and Jamie doing anything for each other. They have made it about stopping the rising. The rising should be a plot element that that highlights their love and devotion to each other.

I've only watched about half of the video so far, but had to stop to comment on a couple of things.

I'm so glad you liked this episode more than the previous one. However, I have to point out that last week Carol was threatening to STOP watching the show if things didn't get better. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions and, yes, you should be able to compare and contract the book and show. However, this week you started out by saying that you didn't think you were all that negative last week.

Carol, please try to listen to the Tom & Lorenzo podcast where they interviewed Terry Dresbach. They talked about why the costumes are designed to make Claire stand out. It is very interesting. It is a little difficult to get to it. Go to: http://www1.play.it/audio/tom-lorenzos-pop-style-opinionfest/ Then, the April 28th episode. Terry's interview starts around 37:35 if you don't want to listen to the whole show.

I'll have to watch the rest of your video later.....got to get some work done, ugh!!

Linda, I followed the link and Terry's interview because I am having a hard time with all the costumes Claire's wearing this season. I understand what Terry is saying about Claire always being different and not belonging to that time and I find the costumes beautiful but they are so jarring to me that I wish Terry would design less over the top and more like the clothes Louise and Mary wear. It's just me. I don't like being constantly more aware of her clothes than of the dialog or action going on in the story.

Carol and Tracey, When I commented to this video earlier, I forgot to tell you how much I enjoyed this one. Many laughs! It was like watching a "very special" or "sweeps-week" episode of MOP! So glad you aren't playing beat the clock :)

OT - When you said you were glad they didn't have Tobias also play Alex (a la Patty Duke), it occurred to me that it would be a ball to see you guys recap Orphan Black. That's the show where Tatiana Maslany plays several different clones (there's an oxymoron for you), and its a great show for "sestras" (that's clone for "sisters"). The show has action, intrigue, unique characters, creative (sometimes complex) story lines, and still manages to be a lot of fun, especially whenever they play around with the show's concept - like in a scene that includes all the clones dancing together. The actress is so good that I will sometimes find myself thinking things like, "Wow, Sarah is doing a great job of impersonating Alison!" until I knock myself on the forehead and remember, "Duh! Its the same actress!" This is one show, besides Outlander, that I enjoy with my own "sestra."

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to make these! Hope you have a great week!

I sure don't envy the writers/producers/directors on this show having to please both book readers and non-book readers. DIA is such a complex book, I almost feel they are catering too much to the book readers (of which I am one!). In such a condensed time, it's just not possible to squeeze in all the little details like hanged man's grease and the king taking a shite...even the 69! I feel like the overall story and character development is being lost as they try to cram in all these little "bits" from the book and jump from scene to scene. As I watch season 2 I sometimes wonder how non-book readers can even follow along, much less have real connections to the characters. At the same time, I love it when I recognize a scene from the book, love it when the dialogue is exactly as Diana has written it, so I don't know what it would take to satisfy me...maybe another 7 episodes this season? Make it an even 20? :) I do realize I make no sense, lol, but I just keep thinking that I'd sacrifice some of those non-essential book details if they would spend a little more time developing plot and characters...even if that means diverging from Diana's text. See? How the heck are the creators of this show supposed to please someone like me? I feel for them. In what could be a no win situation, they are still, as another Charlie would say, "winning!" in my book. I'm so, SO thankful that Outlander the TV series is in existence and we all have the privilege to watch, discuss, and critique!

And now I'm ready to get the hell out of Paris and head back to Scotland...who's with me?!? ;)

Amen to the "head back to Scotland!" I DO wish they hadn't made the decision to try to cram DIA into one 13 episode season. Why should a TV series even feel the need to set the end of a book as a season's parameter? Honestly, I am in NO rush to get to Culloden. I know Paris is necessary to the plot, but I would love to see more about what is going on back at Leoch and Lallybroch during this time. It couldn't be in Claire's POV,I know, but they have broken away from that several times already in the series. There are many ways around that anyway, like dramatizing first person accounts of events from visitors or letters. I'm game for more creative departures from the book, and especially game for MUCH more Scotland. If you've read the early books, aren't you STILL homesick for Lallybroch? The only thing I am NOT game for are more changes to Claire and Jamie's core relationship or to their character. Just preserve that, and the writers could drag me almost anywhere. I know Gabaldon does!

Perfect comment dolittle "Just preserve that, and the writers could drag me almost anywhere." Absolutely how I feel. The reason I loved the books is Jamie and Claire's relationship no matter if they were fighting the English, sipping wine at French court, sailing the seas with Claire dropping out of the rigging after fighting a pirate, fighting crocs among Zombies, searching for strawberry fields in the colonies, fighting with Washington's troops ... great adventures but it's the "core relationship of Jamie and Claire" that kept me buying the books.

I think I missed this the first time I watched the episode, and correct me if I'm wrong... But does Jamie say to Claire after he gives the fortress speech and they make love, "I think YOU'VE built me a lean to, with a roof to keep out the rain." Or something like that. Does he say "You've"? Because if he did, then it could be the writer's way of acknowledging what Claire means to Jamie's healing. Way more in line with the book J&C relationship. I hope I heard right! I'll have to listen again on Saturday.

You guys are all AWESOME for discussing all these points so thoroughly. Especially when it's not always possible for Tracey and me to jump into every conversation. So please KEEP IT GOING!! (insert hugs emoji here) :)

I have to make a comment on ep 204. Jamie is NOT impotent. He could have had sex with anyone BUT Claire (but that is not our Jamie). BJR made him see Claire and himself as one person at the end oflast season. When he tried to have sex with Claire he saw BJR. Only when he found out BJR was alive and he could still kill him could he separate the two.

Late to the party again, because you are my guilty pleasure while my husband plays golf on Saturdays. I love you guys so much! Mark me, I take notes while watching you each week.This week's key words and phrases:1. Mark me, that's a given2. Ron Moore, Good wine at the end of the wedding3.Claire poisoned by Cascade ( subtle reference to modern times, maybe too contemporary)4. Sam= JAMMF, finally5. Master Raymond= Neil Patrick Harris6.Revenge=J. Getting it up?7. Fergus! Way too cute. (Looking forward to some Fergus Lamaze)In reference to the previous episode that you discussed, I totally get the distance between Jamie and Claire. I've been married to my lovely husband for 48 years, and when you go through stressful times and you're not on the same page there is an estrangement. Sometimes it takes just one little thing to realize you ARE on the same page and you are back where you need to be and all is well.Looking forward to this week's discussion. I've already watched and it's a doozy!